Is the Census private and why does it matter?

On 18th December 2015, the ABS put out this media release on privacy of Census data. I didn’t notice, and I follow the ABS quite closely. Most people didn’t notice, possibly due to the proximity to Christmas. Just in the last two weeks, a few media commentators have picked up on it.

The media release says, in a nutshell, that the ABS is abandoning the long-standing (50 year) tradition of destroying name-identified information on Census forms, and for 2016 will be keeping names and addresses. Previously names and addresses were collected, but were destroyed after all the information was entered into the system, unless (since 2001) the respondent answered “Yes” to keeping the information in the 99 year time capsule for future use. ABS stresses that it will be keeping names and addresses in a separate database to the main body of Census data (the Census Unit Record File), but that they will be used “to provide a richer and dynamic statistical picture of Australia through the combination of Census data with other survey and administrative data“.

What that means, in short, is “data linking”. Say you have a survey which collects information on the employment outcomes of school and university leavers in Australia. By linking the survey respondents to records from the Census, enables the cross-classification of these outcomes with all the demographic characteristics collected in the Census. For instance, you would be able to see whether parental income or education levels effects the type of jobs students get after completing school. Importantly you can see how previous parental income effects this, something not easy to do in a survey. In this way linking survey with Census data can also provide a longitudinal picture unavailable to either collection on its own.

Linking is pretty important for improving survey results and providing more useful output, and the ABS already do it. But they do it by probabilistic pattern matching, without reference to name and address – simply matching up the combination of Census answers to match the likely individual to the survey. It’s not the names and addresses in themselves which are important in this new initiative, but that they provide a greater degree of certainty in linking the records between Census and survey results, and minimise records for which no match could be found.

Isn’t this an invasion of privacy?

However, the ABS never release personal information from the Census or any other survey, and they really aren’t interested in anyone’s personal details – it is purely for enhancing statistical collections. They have stressed that the names and addresses will be held in a different database to the full Census dataset, and secured and encrypted.

Nevertheless, with recent hacking scandals (eg. Ashley-Madison), it’s understandable that people could be worried about this data being released even with the ABS having the best intentions of keeping it secure.

Is the Census data that sensitive though?

I don’t actually think the Census questions are particularly intrusive. The question most people are wary of is the income question – presumably afraid that the ABS would share it with the ATO, Centrelink etc. They don’t – but even if they did, this wouldn’t be much use – as Census income is collected in broad ranges (eg. $1500-$1999 per week) – and relates to income from all sources, not annual taxable income anyway. Very useful for understanding the range of incomes and socio-economic status of an area – useless for catching tax evaders.

The other question many object to as being too personal is the Religion question – it generates more chatter around Census time than the rest of the Census questions combined. However, this question has always been optional anyway – people are free not to answer it.

To be honest, I applied for a credit card recently, and had to answer far more detailed and intrusive questions about my family situation and income position, which is now on record with the bank and credit reference agencies, with far less checks on privacy than the ABS has. I guess the difference is though that applying for a credit card is optional (though it’s hard to live without one these days!), while Census is an official collection which is required of Australians once every 5 years.

So what’s the problem with name and address retention?

The ABS security is certainly excellent and they have a strong commitment to the privacy of all their data collections, enshrined in legislation. The problem really is if there is a PERCEPTION of an invasion of privacy, and the risk that people will not answer Census questions truthfully if they fear their information will be kept and possibly released.

The reason the ABS has even collected names and addresses in previous Censuses if they were only going to be destroyed, is that there is a great deal of evidence that respondents will answer questions more truthfully once they have their real name attached to it. This is a simple cognitive tool which leads people to be more honest and gives a better dataset as a result.

The danger is if people are concerned about the security of their information with this new development that this could backfire, and they could then falsify information on the Census form. We certainly hope no-one does this, but it is a concern, if there is a negative reaction to this development.

The Census is the only source of reliable, small area data for planning at the small area level in Australia. It is of vital importance to all levels of government, business, and indeed individuals, and raises the understanding of demographics and social change in the community. .id, and through us, over 250 Local Government clients throughout Australia use this data every day and need it to be accurate.

The job for the ABS then is to convince the population that – with their good track record in this area – the data will be safe and confidential despite this change, in the relatively short time we have before Census day – if there is not to be a resulting reduction in the quality of the Census from it. If the data quality are reduced, any enhancement gained from being able to link datasets from survey and Census will be eliminated by the greater non-response rate or statistical noise generated from false answers. And this is a worse outcome for Australia.

Who else is this change good for?

There should be one group of the population who are very happy about this change, and promote it widely as a good thing.

Every 5 years, the ABS receives more submissions to its consultation process asking FOR the compulsory retention of names and addresses than any other Census-related topic (Religion related submissions are a close second). This may seem odd, given the privacy concerns now that it’s been announced, but they have a very good reason for wanting name identified information.

I’m speaking of course, about Genealogists, who regularly use historic Census records from the Australian colonies, and other nations, to research their family histories. They have long bemoaned the loss of the historic record since the 1960s when the name identified information began to be destroyed as a matter of policy. They should be quite pleased with this outcome, though whether the data will ever in the distant future be released in a format which allows for genealogical research is still an open question.

Census is happening this year, on the 9th of August. The vitally important statistical information derived from it will begin to be incorporated in our Local Government client sites (profile.id, atlas.id and economy.id) from mid-2017. .id believes that Census is the cornerstone of our democracy and the data is of vital importance to all Australians. We encourage everyone to answer the Census honestly, and will be monitoring this issue closely.

Glenn is an ABS data expert with huge intellect and capacity to convert demographic data into profound insights about places. He has contributed numerous blogs and consulting projects covering economic development, housing consumption and affordability, migration, fertility, ageing, role and function of ‘place’, communities of interest and more. Glenn works with over 120 councils bringing the client perspective into the development of our information products. He is a Census data expert, having worked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 10 years. If there's anything Glenn doesn't know about the Census, it's probably not worth knowing - so ask Glenn!

4 Responses

Statistics from the census are very private, unless you want your tax file No, tattooed on your bum at birth, and especially misleading when tax payers in the single address is used to calculate the income of the singular household come residences, the census is very important to know where and what exactly, workers, non professionals, professionals, engineers, essential service trade, and engineers come from, the census is important to know and understand apart from incomes, additional properties ownership by the singular resident owner, and how being used, and then, what is essential to know, the situation and knowledge of health and education and most important does the GOV. of the day, understand the need, and the money involved, how to support it , or destroy it by shear ignorance, the census is most important but not for resale to commercial interests like our rate notice address, and home ownership, sold to retailers..

Income and Religion are not the only questions that cause concern. The world has moved to the right since 2011 and right wing Christians are exercising more influence than they should. After the heady days of 1989 (when the Berlin Wall came down) and 2000 (Sydney Olympics) just prior to September 11 2001, we’ve watched the world become tenser and political leaders have reacted rather than lead. Legislation can be changed. People in unconventional relationships can be targeted. Highly unlikely no doubt, but many who are not in a traditional marriage are used to feeling uneasy and it would take very little to produce an undercount in this area. Four years is a long time in politics.

And Kate I’m sorry. If conservative can demand a impartial review of safe schools and then storm out of it, because it was an impartial review of the program, then statistics don’t mean anything to them. You want to stop the hard right, campaign against them. Boycott their corporate masters, stage protests and civil disobedience. Because statistics is another number they can ignore.

There is nothing in the Census that would be sensitive enough to use for insider trading. This case was about the use of pre-embargo sensitive economic data which can affect the stock market. And nothing in this involved release of confidential data on individuals.

DISCLAIMER: While all due care has been taken to ensure that the content of this website is accurate and current, there may be errors or omissions in it and no legal responsibility is accepted for the information and opinions in this website.
Please view our Privacy Policy , Terms of use and Legal Notices